Sue Happy Lawyers
 

First you sue Tobacco Companys for giving cancer.
Then, you sue Mc Donalds for making for making people fat.

So, when do you sue Budwieswer for making people being drunk screwing ugly people?:confused:

Perhaps we should sue the beer and liquor companies for causing people to make atrocious nonsensical posts on message boards.

I thought moonshine was made in bathtub stills? Can you buy moonshine in liquor stores?

You do know, don't you Tom, that the lawyers can't sue these companies on their own? They have to have clients on whose behalf they are suing.

If the clients weren't there, the lawyers couldn't sue.

I dunno, but I think they should sue nursing homes for letting past-their-prime senile Lambda Chis out of their wathcful eyes, enabling them to freely roam the streets in search of a computer that is able to access certain online message boards.

Seriously. I don't understand the point of blaming lawyers, as if they file stupid lawsuits on their own.

Exactly, and I've never quite understood why lawyers get so much of the blame here.

Because it's the lawyers' faults. Not their clients'. :rolleyes:

I'll sue anybody. I mean anybody. Nuns, puppies, just wait till I pass the bar/graduate from law school/finish my first semester.

You could sue Tom Earp.

Tom, what is the reason behind your attitude towards lawyers? Was your ex-wife one? Did she run away with one?

WHAT? You mean lawyers aren't just out to cause everyone problems? :eek:

*drops out of law school*

But what will Harvard do without you?

Oh, I imagine they'll keep soldiering on. ;)

Hm, wonder if there were no lawyers, would there be law suits?

Are not lawyers the majority of Legislators?

Maybe they get into Politics as they are not worth a darn as lawyers?:D

Join ACLU and change the world for the ?????ment?

Oh, never mind, they want to make the life for us better.:rolleyes:

God are we having fun yet.

WTF

Just some S & G to go along with the joke on the first post that some get noses out of joint!:D

WTF, does that answer your question?:)

Now Tom.... what you & BBS do on your own time is up to you -- don't go & blame the king of beers for poor choices in your life :cool:

ETA: adding to the siggy, thanks ;)

For someone who gets so upset when people criticize your profession, you have a good time criticizing other people's professions.

Whats Earp do

He runs a tobacco shop.

He's a former cop too if I recall. I'm sure his great grand uncle (or whatever the relation is) would be proud.

I would be mad too if my flag pole was down and couldn't get up.

*dies laughing*

that made my day. really, thank you.

Tom, are all lawyers bad?

Why the hostility?

Damn that Thurgood Marshall and his sue-happiness.

I have already explained this with a previous post:


Hope that explains some things for you :cool:

And Abraham Lincoln. Talk about an ambulance chaser!

Since the "Kramer" thread is closed I though this would fit just as well here.

The following are a couple of excerpts from the article. Found here:
http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=243077&GT1=7703&

Men Seek Apology From Ex-'Seinfeld'

"Two men who say they were insulted by actor-comedian Michael Richards during his racist rant at a comedy club want a personal apology and maybe some money, one of the men and their lawyer said Friday".

"Allred, speaking by phone from Colorado, said Richards should meet McBride and Doss in front of a retired judge to "acknowledge his behavior and to apologize to them" and allow the judge to decide on monetary compensation".

"Our clients were vulnerable," Allred said. "He went after them. He singled them out and he taunted them, and he did it in a closed room where they were captive."

Captive!?! They couldnt get up and leave when he started insulting them? Did he have them tied to their seats with a gun to their head?

I'm not making any exscuses for Richards here, but come on. Monetary compensation for being a jerk. An apology is appropriate, but not cash.

The real trouble with class action lawsuits is that by their nature they provide an incentive to attorneys to profit at the expense of their clients and the greater good.

When I was in public accounting, I did a lot of work on some of the largest asbestos litigations in the country. Obviously I cannot say too much about that, but what astounded me was how these things are structured.

Back when large numbers of people who were truly and seriously affected by asbestos were still alive, and suffering in terrible ways, the standard out of court settlement was $25,000 for death and $10,000-18,000 for the onset of serious health problems that could be linked to asbestos. The settlement was usually $2,500-5,000 for those who were willing to settle while they showed minor signs.

It seems cruel to say this, but the fact is most people who were badly impacted by asbestos exposure are no longer with us- not just because of the effects of the exposure but because of the amount of time that has passed since the stuff was largely removed from use.

Yet there are still occasional cases that arise which are serious.

The tactic now is to take 4-5 serious cases, add in several hundred or even several thousand cases where people were exposed from one to several times and have NO symptoms, and then try to get a class action settlement for the entire group.

The thought process is that a company is more likely to settle for $10,000 each on 1,000 claims for $10 million rather than risk those 4-5 really serious cases going to court for years and resulting in total rewards for those 4-5 people in the $5 million+ range each.

In the process, the really sick people get very little money- not much more than they did 20 years ago, the people who had minimal exposure and are unlikely to ever become ill get a few grand each, and then the attorneys pocket 30-35% of a multi-million dollar settlement. The appeal to the sick is that they get something now and don't have to sign on for a 10 year legal battle in the hopes of a big payoff. Clearly, attorneys have to talk their really sick clients into settling for next to nothing for these suits to work, and it happens!

Even less scrupulous law firms will sell their client lists across state lines. A big part of my work was to scrutinize client lists on these class action suits and a substantial number of claims were filed in multiple states. The goal is to get double payment on a single claim and the hope is that by giving companies these massive lists they will figure it is cheaper to settle than try to audit the claims and compare them to other firms who have also filed massive lists.

All that said, in this time of globalization and corporate consolidation we are seeing companies that have the kind of power, even greater power in many cases, that the trusts that existed in the US during the Industrial Revolution.

Class action claims are about the only recourse the common man has against these massive companies.

So I would be reluctant to do away with class action lawsuits entirely.

The solution I think is more strict enforcement of ethical standards. I think Earp makes a good point noting that attorney is the most common profession of government legislators.

The government goes after accountants and doctors all the time- just look at Sarbanes-Oxley and Medicare-imposed price controls on medical procedures.

But when was the last time the government took a heavy hand in the conduct of attorneys?...

Under that logic, most people who sue for sexual harassment aren't entitled to cash either. Not something I agree with.

The distinction I would make there however is that in a sexual harassment situation you are dealing with the conduct of your employer- or someone at the site of your employer.

So there is a presumed situation where the recipient of the harassment is pressured to endure it unfairly or risk losing a job or otherwise being handled inequitably in the future at work (promotions, raises etc.)

I am not an attorney- so anyone who is tell me if I am wrong, but I would think the following is true,

1. Your boss/coworker comes up to you and says "nice ass"! You have a lawsuit.

2. A random person on the street walks by and says "nice ass"! You don't have a lawsuit (at least to my knowledge.)

That is how I would support Alpha Sig Scott's contention.

But then again, these guys who attended the concert paid money to attend and would certainly have certain rights on those grounds.

I could see them getting their money back, and maybe incidental expenses if they had hired babysitters for children etc.- but is there any legal precedent under which they could sue for punitive damages?

EDIT- now that I think about it more,

If a person is stopped in a department store for shoplifting without documented probable cause (ie video)- that is one hell of a good lawsuit, even if they did actually steal something, in part because of public humiliation.

I wonder if this case could be built along those lines? Granted, the guys had the option to leave the venue- but by that point the racially motivated "public humiliation" had already happened. So the option to leave is meaningless.

Personally I think to sue would be ridiculous, but it is interesting to ponder how such a case could be made.

Amazing isn't it?

There are two sides of any argument of a situation isn't there?

A Plantiff Lawyer or a Defense Lawyer.

Now, I am wondering what your logic is?

Is the plantiff guilty or is the defendant guilty?

Granted I usualy talk about Criminal Law!

Not posted to a non lawyer as I am not either, but G P is supposedly studing The Leagal Proffession.

What is going to be your expertise of Legality?

Sugggest you try Internet or Trade International asspects.

jusrt a thought!

I really am not sure what you are getting at here at all, other than wondering what type of lawyer I want to be. It's still public defense, and I still don't see how that's relevant.

COOL.

Guess it says it all?

Now, I am wondering how you picked this out of hatr I was posting in reference to a previous postere'?

I just suggested, try another form of legal jurispruennce!

I know I did not spell it correctly as am gitting tired and going to eat.

So may I say Adious.

You spent a lot of words to get to really no point whatsoever.

Class actions benefit lawyers? Shocking. Class actions provide an outlet for abuse by those who are marginally within the class definition? Shocking. Individual cases bring larger verdicts than CAs? Shocking.

I fail to see how any of this would be solved by "enforcing ethical standards" - can you help me here?

Also, are you really going to compare Medicare-imposed price controls to attorneys' fees? Really? Seriously? You realize the government only intervened because it was their money on the line? C'mon, guy . . .

A big difference being that the hecklers were harrassing Richards first... whereas, sexual harrassment suits are (theoretically) brought about by totally innocent parties.

Sure Richards was wrong, and owed his audience and apology, but the hecklers owe Richards an apology as well for disrupting his act. How can they sue when they were at fault as well?

You can sue for anything. The question is just if you win. ;)